This is a follow-up to my article, Dialogue w a Protestant on Mary\u2019s Perpetual Virginity (II): Biblical Proof That Three Named \u201cBrethren\u201d of Jesus Are Non-Siblings + Harmonious 2nd Century Evidence Regarding the Fourth (Simon)<\/a> [1-3-23].<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In the previous effort, I set forth the opinions of Church historian Hegesippus<\/a> (c. 110 \u2013 c. 180) regarding the brothers of Jesus (particularly, Simon, or Symeon: see Acts 15:14; 2 Pet 1:1). Eusebius, in his\u00a0History of the Church<\/i>, documents\u00a0Hegesippus\u2019 words as follows:<\/p>\n After the\u00a0martyrdom\u00a0of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the\u00a0apostles\u00a0and\u00a0disciples\u00a0of the\u00a0Lord\u00a0that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the\u00a0Lord\u00a0according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.<\/p>\n They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel\u00a0also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the\u00a0Saviour. For\u00a0Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. (Book III, section 11, parts 1-2<\/a>; translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert.<\/span>\u00a0From\u00a0Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series<\/span><\/em>,\u00a0Vol. 1.<\/span>\u00a0Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.<\/span>\u00a0[1890], pp. 123-124 in the version translated by G. A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965; cf.\u00a0Book III, section 32, part 4<\/a>: \u201cMary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon\u201d and\u00a0Book III, section 32, part 1<\/a>: \u201cSymeon, the son of Clopas\u201d)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hegesippus also describes the beginnings of the heresies that arose in his time, in the following words, rescued from oblivion by Eusebius:<\/p>\n And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord\u2019s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. (Book IV, section 22, part 4<\/a>; Williamson translation, p. 181)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n According to Hegesippus, Simon, or Symeon was (like James and Joseph: see Mt 13:55; 27:56; Mk 6:3; 15:40) also a son of Clopas and the \u201cother Mary\u201d (uncle and aunt to Jesus); therefore also a cousin of Jesus and not a sibling. But many point out that Hegesippus appears to regard James and Jude as Jesus\u2019 siblings. Maybe; or maybe not<\/em> . . .<\/p>\n James B. Prothro<\/a>\u00a0is an Assistant Professor of Scripture and Theology. His academic work \u201cfocuses on the letters and thought of the Apostle Paul and on the ancient Greek language.\u201d He obtained a Ph.D. in New Testament from the University of Cambridge and an MA in classics and MDiv in theology from other universities.<\/p>\n He wrote an article entitled,\u00a0\u201cSemper Virgo? A Biblical Review of a Debated Dogma\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology<\/em>, Vol. 28, Issue 1, March 7, 2019). Here are his comments about Hegesippus:<\/p>\n The more reliable second-century writer sometimes cited here is Hegesippus, fragments of whose chronicles are preserved by Eusebius. Hegesippus is cited not because he explicitly claims Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d were Josephs\u2019 sons, but because (a) he refers to James as \u201cthe Lord\u2019s brother\u201d and says Jude was \u201ccalled\u201d (\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) [legomenos<\/em><\/a>] Jesus\u2019 brother according to the flesh (Eusebius, HE [History of the Church<\/em>] 3.20.1)\u2014which some think implies a lack of consanguinity\u2014and (b) he can use broader terms like \u201ccousins\u201d for other relatives; so the surmise is that he viewed these as closer than cousins but not full brothers. However, Hegesippus may rather suggest a different view. In one passage, Hegesippus speaks of Symeon (=Simon) being appointed bishop in Jerusalem after James (apparently appointed with input from Jesus\u2019 other relatives, cf. Eusebius, HE 3.11\u201312). Symeon is Jesus\u2019 putative cousin (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2) [anepsios<\/em><\/a>], son of Joseph\u2019s brother Clopas (cf. John 19:25). But notably this same descriptor could go also to James, the \u201cbrother of the Lord\u201d: after James died, Hegesippus reports, \u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u1fb6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f43\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd [\u201cSimeon son of Clopas becomes a bishop, whom everyone nominated, being a cousin of the Lord\u201d] (Eusebius, HE 4.22.4). Bauckham reads \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd [deuteros<\/em><\/a>\/ \u201cthe second, the other of two\u201d]\u00a0as a predicate complement to \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf [\u201cpast\u201d], making Symeon a further \u201cbishop.\u201d But \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd appears rather to be in the supplemental participial clause with \u1f64\u03bd [\u00f3n \/ \u201cbe, come, have\u201d<\/a>] (a common idiom for adding pertinent identity information), modifying \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd. This would result in the following translation: \u201cSymeon son of Clopas was appointed bishop, whom all commended, being another cousin of the Lord.\u201d If this reading is correct, Hegesippus understands not only Symeon but also James, whose title as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrother\u201d he elsewhere repeats, to have been in fact his cousin. If one trusts his purported knowledge of Jesus\u2019 family and their descendants (cf. HE 3.19.1\u201320.6)\u2014or at least reasons that he is unlikely to have invented such information whole cloth\u2014then one finds warrant to explore broader relationships between Jesus and his \u201cbrothers and sisters.\u201d<\/p>\n [Footnote: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd [\u201cagain\u201d] may suggest Hegesippus is saying Symeon is another child of Jesus\u2019 uncle: first, James has never had a cousin be bishop; second, it seems closer to Hegesippus\u2019 purpose to trace kinship of the first Jerusalem bishops to Jesus (rather than relating Symeon to James), . . . ]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The skeptical argument regarding the Catholic interpretation laid out by Dr. Prothro above, is to ask why Hegesippus referred to James and Joseph as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d (adelphoi<\/em>), but called Simon a \u201ccousin\u201d? Wouldn\u2019t he have also<\/em> called the former \u201ccousins\u201d (syngenis<\/em> or anepsios<\/em>) if in fact he believed all<\/em> of them were? It doesn\u2019t necessarily<\/em> follow that he would<\/em> or must<\/em> do that. How can I say that? I can because of the use of these words in the Gospels (including Jesus\u2019 own).<\/p>\n I laid out the standard biblical \u201ccase\u201d for James and Joseph being Jesus\u2019 cousins in my previous installment<\/a> of this series. It seems to me a fairly compelling exegetical argument. If one accepts it, then we have an instance of the Gospel writers referring (many times) to literal cousins as \u201cbrothers.\u201d Arguably, also, we have Jesus referring to these same described \u201cbrothers\u201d as \u201ccousins.\u201d That was also argued in my previous paper, with the aid of a commenter:<\/p>\n Mark 6:4<\/strong>\u00a0And Jesus said to them, \u201cA prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin [(\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, \u03ad\u03c2 \/\u00a0suggenes<\/em>)], and in his own house.\u201d (cf. Jn 7:5: \u201cFor even his brothers did not believe in him.\u201d)<\/p>\n He [Alex Lielbardis] added:<\/p>\n The plural Greek word used refers to kinsfolk, relatives, or fellow countrymen. This same word is used by Luke in his account of the Annunciation which in the singular form specifically means a cousin: \u201cAnd behold, your kinswoman [\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c2 \/\u00a0syngenis<\/em>] Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren\u201d (Luke 1:36). Thus, Jesus apparently replies with his cousins (relatives or kin) in mind, in response to what was said by those who were offended at him.<\/p>\n The context of this incident was His preaching in His hometown of Nazareth. Both Mark (6:3) and the parallel text in Matthew (13:55-56), in the immediate context mention four \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus\u201d and also, unnamed \u201csisters.\u201d Jesus was catching flak from these relatives in His hometown. Both Matthew and Mark record Jesus as saying in response that a \u201cprophet\u201d is not honored \u201cin his own house.\u201d That would be these \u201cbrothers\u201d (Jewish families of this time including members of the extended family, not usually just a nuclear family, as I also recently demonstrated<\/a>).<\/p>\n In Mark, it\u2019s recorded that Jesus specifically identified \u201ckin\u201d as among those who oppose a prophet. The word Jesus used is \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, \u03ad\u03c2 (suggenes<\/em>): which also can be translated as \u201ccousin.\u201d\u00a0 It seems clear in context that He is referring to these \u201cbrothers\u201d who are also described as living in Jesus\u2019 \u201chouse.\u201d Therefore, he described these \u201cbrothers\u201d as suggenes<\/em>, whereas the two Gospel writers call them \u201cbrothers\u201d and \u201csisters\u201d (adelphoi<\/em>). In 32 translations of Mark 6:4<\/a>, suggenes<\/em> (\u201ckin\u201d in the RSV) is translated as \u201crelatives\u201d.<\/p>\n The parallelism is obvious by comparing these two Bible passages:<\/p>\n Mark 6:4<\/strong> (RSV) . . . A prophet is not without honor, except . . . among his own kin<\/em> [\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, \u03ad\u03c2 \/ suggenes<\/em>] . . .<\/p>\n John 7:5<\/strong> For even his brothers [adelphoi<\/em>] did not believe in him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In another incident at Nazareth, after Jesus claimed to be the Messiah in the synagogue (Lk 4:16-21), the townspeople (including possibly some of these \u201cbrothers\u201d for all we know) were scandalized by His claim and \u201cfilled with wrath\u201d (4:28), and again, Jesus said, \u201cTruly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country\u201d (Lk 4:24). They then tried to kill Him:<\/p>\n Luke 4:29<\/strong> And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus we see that [what I believe to be cousins, based on all my reasoning and various arguments] are called \u201ccousins\u201d or \u201ckin\u201d in one place in the Bible (by Jesus) and \u201cbrothers\u201d in many other places (from the narrator evangelists). This proves that both terms were proper, in describing cousins or other non-sibling relatives. If the Bible can display this latitude of language, then I submit that Hegesippus in the next century can also do so. He could<\/em> possibly call Jude and James \u201cbrothers\u201d of the Lord, meaning \u201ccousin\u201d, and also call Simon a \u201ccousin\u201d of the Lord (with the literal meaning of that term). It\u2019s not impossible. Goose and gander . . .<\/p>\n Another little interesting tidbit to ponder, is how two Gospel writers (recording spoken words) described Jesus and His brothers in relation to Mary:<\/p>\n Mark 6:3<\/strong> \u201cIs not this the carpenter, the son of Mary<\/span> and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?\u201d And they took offense at him.<\/p>\n Matthew 13:55<\/strong> \u201cIs not this the carpenter\u2019s son<\/span>? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Can you see what I\u2019m driving at by my use of blue font? I never thought of this until today, when I saw it in one commentary. It\u2019s the singular use of \u201cson\u201d<\/em> in describing Jesus. This would seem to (at the very least, possibly<\/em>) suggest \u201conly son.\u201d It\u2019s in the context of mentioning four of His \u201cbrothers\u201d and also \u201csisters\u201d in Mark. Now, if they are all understood to be \u2014 and were in fact \u2014 His siblings<\/em>, why is He called \u201cthe son of Mary\u201d and \u201cthe carpenter\u2019s son\u201d? Note also that in both passages, only He<\/em> is called Mary\u2019s \u201cson\u201d and also Joseph\u2019s (in Matthew). The others are not.<\/p>\n It seems to me (maybe I\u2019m weird), as an argument from implausibility, that this is not<\/em> the language we would expect God to inspire the evangelists to use (remember, we\u2019re talking about divinely inspired revelation), if in fact, Jesus had siblings. It would have been easy as pie for these passages to read so clearly<\/em>, so manifestly plain<\/em>, that there never would have been any<\/strong> dispute<\/em> about the nature of the \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus. All it would have taken would be a few changes of words. I submit that the passages would have read something like the following, if<\/em><\/strong> Jesus had siblings:<\/p>\n Mark 6:3<\/strong> [Liberal Protestant Version: LPV] \u201cIs not this the carpenter,<\/span> one of <\/em><\/strong>the sons<\/em><\/strong> of Mary, along with<\/em><\/strong><\/span> his brothers James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?\u201d And they took offense at him.<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 13:55<\/strong> \u201cIs not this<\/span> one of <\/strong><\/em>the carpenter\u2019s sons<\/strong><\/em><\/span>? Is not his mother<\/span> and the mother of <\/em><\/strong>his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas <\/span><\/span>called Mary?\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One good reason why at least James and Joseph are not described as the Blessed Virgin Mary\u2019s son in these passages, is because they are specifically called in other passages the sons of \u201cthe other Mary\u201d: who is called a \u201csister\u201d of Jesus\u2019 mother Mary. The Bible is self-consistent as always.<\/p>\n Simple; easy; elementary. Instead<\/em>, we get \u201cthe son of Mary\u201d and \u201cthe carpenter\u2019s son\u201d: even when \u201cbrothers\u201d are being discussed in the same context. These \u201cbrothers\u201d and \u201csisters\u201d are neither described as sons or daughters of Mary, nor of Joseph. Only Jesus is, using the singular \u201cson.\u201d<\/p>\n This factor, along with some dozen other arguments, of varying degrees of strength (and I\u2019ve written about as many as I could find), produce an overall<\/em> case that is (like many of the biblical arguments for Catholicism, which I have specialized in for these past 32 years) very strong in its cumulative effect, just as a rope becomes stronger each time an additional strand is added to it.<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/01\/Mary11.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n